US Troops Target Reporters/Children ... Supposedly

[JimBeam]

I'm not sure if this was posted already and I'm not even the kinda person to post it but thought it might be of interest to some.

I don't know if it's true and I haven't watched the whole thing so I'm not sure it's even what it's supposed to be.

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QIvGhYQVPoQ"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QIvGhYQVPoQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

[Furtherman]

The banter that the soldiers have with each other cannot be analyzed nor criticized. We who haven't served have no idea what they're feeling, but I think we can all agree that making fun of any situation helps stress and whatever dire straights they're in. I think it's well known that cops will crack jokes at crime scenes.

As for the video... I have no idea if they're carrying guns or cameras. We're being told by the guy in the video - who, if I'm not mistaken, is a big proponent in 9/11 conspiracy. I don't know his name but I recognize him, and I don't think his credibility is too stable.

As for the video and labeled arrows, I can't tell whether they were terrorists or civilians. I don't know if any of us can.

I have seen the video on the "contractors" in Iraq shooting at cars. That seemed very real and plausible, considering who they were (blackwater and other mercenaries).

[Chigworthy]

I lost interest after the first minute of showing video clips completely out of context. If this guy is trying make the point that soldiers fighting cannot joke about the awful things that they see and do, then he is just an ass-out ninny. It's a coping mechanism and part of the culture of people who deal with atrocity on a daily basis. Fuck him for trying to call them out on it.

Also, mixing in the mercenary footage is just a blatant way to shade the facts.

I gave it 1:30 and didn't see any new video that hasn't been out for years.

Horrible shit will happen in war, from both sides.

[dereckfishboy]

Wow, what an asshole. Yes, there are some sick violent fucks in the military. Doesn't mean that's the entire military. And when a government employee or group of government employees does something horrible, that is absolutely does not mean the government did something horrible. I cannot stand this need to make the government some nebulous evil entity, like it's the Borg and cops and soldiers are part of the collective. This is just another douche who never got over his juvenile need to rebel against authority.

[JimBeam]

And you'd think that the planning and logisitics of a bombing like that would be expensive and wouldn't be done for $hits and giggles.

[SatCam]

I cant believe how dismissive the replies have been in this thread. The video is the view from an apache helicopter effectively cruising the city looking for any reason to shoot and kill human beings. Whether or not there were guns is not the issue (at least two of the "guns" were actually cameras.) The troops laughter/jolly nature is not the issue. The issue here is that civilians were killed just because they were thought to have guns (yes, they claimed there was an RPG, but the guys in the helicopter were looking to shoot even before any mention of an RPG). Then, after the group was shot dead, a van came to try to try to rescue any survivors, and the van occupants were then shot at.



Is that not incredibly fucked up?



This is the nature of this war. We invaded a country and killed thousands of innocent people simply because they lived there. We have accomplished nothing. This video is reflective of the entire military and this entire war. It is OK to murder if you're a soldier in Iraq/Afganistan, but not OK here in America.

Please, ignore the video and look at the facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?src=me

[Furtherman]

As for the video... I have no idea if they're carrying guns or cameras. We're being told by the guy in the video - who, if I'm not mistaken, is a big proponent in 9/11 conspiracy. I don't know his name but I recognize him, and I don't think his credibility is too stable.


I cant believe how dismissive the replies have been in this thread.
Please, ignore the video and look at the facts. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?src=me

As I said before, I did not know what the situation was, but now I do. Thanks for the link.


And yes, that is incredibly fucked up.

[brettmojo]

It'd help if the guy hosting the video wasn't a wacky douche bag.

[underdog]

Wow.

The guy narrating the video is the type of guy that makes people not interested in this stuff or immediately dismiss it.

But that video is crazy.

[epo]

Wow.

The guy narrating the video is the type of guy that makes people not interested in this stuff or immediately dismiss it.

But that video is crazy.

Which is why the most important component of an argument is "credibility". That guy appears loony...but that's some messed up shit.

[Dan 'Hampton]

Alex jones. Big truther.

[Barnaby Jones]

Alex Jones is a paranoid lunatic, but this video should be seen. Here's a shorter version minus his ranting garbage:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Here's the full video:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/is9sxRfU-ik&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/is9sxRfU-ik&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

It's not a cut and dry situation of good vs. bad, but it's pretty messed up that they were seemingly firing on any gathering in the city. I understand the confusion that can arise, but it seems like the one guy is making up that they're being fired on.

[underdog]

It's not a cut and dry situation of good vs. bad, but it's pretty messed up that they were seemingly firing on any gathering in the city. I understand the confusion that can arise, but it seems like the one guy is making up that they're being fired on.

I don't get the "they came to collect the bodies, let's kill them". Especially with the children sitting there. That was just ruthless.

[Barnaby Jones]

I don't get the "they came to collect the bodies, let's kill them". Especially with the children sitting there. That was just ruthless.

True. There was no reason for them to fire on the van. There were no weapons in sight and it was obvious that they were trying to help the wounded reporter.

Watching Saeed crawl around on the ground wounded while the soldiers root for him to have a weapon is very disturbing.

[Dan 'Hampton]

I don't get Internet posters judging what happened there based on a YouTube clip. It's plain retarded.

[Barnaby Jones]

Have you watched the almost 40 minute clip?

[Snoogans]

the video i saw had the arrows and shit added in but didnt have this dickhead ranting. it seemed to me to be a mistake but nothing intentional

[Dan 'Hampton]

I don't watch with much serious anything Alex jones promotes. He's got a good radio show to fall asleep to though.

[underdog]

I don't watch with much serious anything Alex jones promotes. He's got a good radio show to fall asleep to though.

Yeah, there's a lot more to this than Alex Jones.

[Dan 'Hampton]

Ok just watched it. Extremely unfortunate situation. But I didn't see where the pilots said anything inappropriate. I can't imaginebeing over there and not just continually firing on anything that moves. I didn't see how the gunners were supposed to know there were kids in that van. Of course the millitary whould have brought them to base to treat them.

[Dan 'Hampton]

The title of this thread is amazingly exagerated.

[Barnaby Jones]

Did you watch the Alex Jones bullshit that was posted or either of the two videos I found? The Jones one is useless.

For me, it's nothing about the language the guys are using so much as it sounds like these guys are needlessly targeting groups of people and possibly making up reasons to shoot such groups.

You hear the one guy clearly stating that their targets are firing when it is obvious from the footage they haven't done anything that looks anything like a hostile action. There was definitely no reason to shoot up the van.

[Dan 'Hampton]

It appeared they wrongfully thought there were weapons, I dint get how they were firing willynilly. They had to get permission both times. They were wrong, the coverup was wrong but I don't see criminality.

[Snoogans]

Did you watch the Alex Jones bullshit that was posted or either of the two videos I found? The Jones one is useless.

For me, it's nothing about the language the guys are using so much as it sounds like these guys are needlessly targeting groups of people and possibly making up reasons to shoot such groups.

You hear the one guy clearly stating that their targets are firing when it is obvious from the footage they haven't done anything that looks anything like a hostile action. There was definitely no reason to shoot up the van.

there goal is to take out opposition forces. even if the forces arent attacking, if you see what you think is a group of them with weapons, even if they are hangin out, you are still gonna take them out. they thought they were doin their job. It seems to me an unintentional mistake

[underdog]

Ok just watched it. Extremely unfortunate situation. But I didn't see where the pilots said anything inappropriate. I can't imaginebeing over there and not just continually firing on anything that moves. I didn't see how the gunners were supposed to know there were kids in that van. Of course the millitary whould have brought them to base to treat them.

They immediately realized they were children and made a comment about, "well, that's what you get for bringing children to a battle" when the van was just there to pick up the wounded.

[Dan 'Hampton]

What do you want them to say? Oh my god we hit kids?

[underdog]

What do you want them to say? Oh my god we hit kids?

They can say whatever, but they shouldn't be chuckling when they say it.

[Barnaby Jones]

there goal is to take out opposition forces. even if the forces arent attacking, if you see what you think is a group of them with weapons, even if they are hangin out, you are still gonna take them out. they thought they were doin their job. It seems to me an unintentional mistake

I think that just shows how unwinnable this all is. In the middle of all that guys are always going to be seeing what they think are weapons. This is in no way an isolated incident.

And I think it must be repeated that the one guy was claiming they were fired on when there was nothing in the video that resembles any kind of combat action. It would be one thing if they were acting based on the assumption that the group had weapons, but we clearly see that the one soldier was completely making up a scenario to fire on this group.

[brettmojo]

The only conclusive thing about that video is that the US military would benefit greatly from just pulling the troops out and firing a few Trident missiles in there. Then conspiracy nut whack job #1949843 can make one last 10 minute boring video warning us about how this was just the beta test for the government to launch all the nukes on us, the American people, therefore annihilating every citizen to achieve their ultimate plan of ruling over a small surviving group of radioactive mutants with an iron fist.

[Dan 'Hampton]

Who are we to judge if hey were being fired on? Especially from just the video we saw. We weren't seeing the whole area.
And I didn't hear chuckling, smarmy remarks about the kid yeah.

[brettmojo]

Who are we to judge if hey were being fired on? Especially from just the video we saw. We weren't seeing the whole area.
And I didn't hear chuckling, smarmy remarks about the kid yeah.
You're forgetting we live in the "Know it all" age now where everyone knows everything about everything. Why shouldn't people who's biggest stress of any given day might be deciding whether or not to go to Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts be able to tell soldiers exactly how they should act and approach a given situation in a combat environment.

[Dan 'Hampton]

Exactly.

[Barnaby Jones]

If they were being fired upon from elsewhere, why would they assume that the firing was coming from the group they were observing and could clearly see were not engaging in any kind of combat? You're calling the soldiers involved incompetent in a roundabout way if you think the sound end result of being fired upon is eradicating a group of people standing around in the wide open clearly not firing any weapons.

I really wish the original poster would put the unedited video clip in the first post as opposed to that Alex Jones garbage. Jones is spinning this with his usual conspiracy nonsense when this should be looked at for what it is: an unfortunate reflection of the unwinnable nature of the occupation of Iraq.

[Snoogans]

I think that just shows how unwinnable this all is. In the middle of all that guys are always going to be seeing what they think are weapons. This is in no way an isolated incident.

And I think it must be repeated that the one guy was claiming they were fired on when there was nothing in the video that resembles any kind of combat action. It would be one thing if they were acting based on the assumption that the group had weapons, but we clearly see that the one soldier was completely making up a scenario to fire on this group.

the guy who claimed that was in another chopper. not the one we were watching from. There was too choppers at least, cause you can see the one shooting the courtyard while the other circled behind the buildings. it was more than just what we saw firing on them

[Snoogans]

If they were being fired upon from elsewhere, why would they assume that the firing was coming from the group they were observing and could clearly see were not engaging in any kind of combat? You're calling the soldiers involved incompetent in a roundabout way if you think the sound end result of being fired upon is eradicating a group of people standing around in the wide open clearly not firing any weapons.

I really wish the original poster would put the unedited video clip in the first post as opposed to that Alex Jones garbage. Jones is spinning this with his usual conspiracy nonsense when this should be looked at for what it is: an unfortunate reflection of the unwinnable nature of the occupation of Iraq.

again, this wasnt just one chopper. the chopper we were watching from was in communication with at least 1, sounded like 2 other choppers and ground units. Who knows which one said they were fired on, but it definately wasnt the one we were watching from. they received that transmission.

go watch the unedited video with nothing except the radio transmissions.

[brettmojo]

the guy who claimed that was in another chopper. not the one we were watching from. There was too choppers at least, cause you can see the one shooting the courtyard while the other circled behind the buildings. it was more than just what we saw firing on them
Hey.

He knows everything he needs to know to tell trained United States soldiers flying multimillion dollar war machines what they should be doing from the internet video he watched.

He doesn't need you trying to fill his head with some nonsense. If there was another chopper in that video he would have saw it flying around down there.

[Barnaby Jones]

I have. The communications all seem to be pertaining to the group in the street that were shot. The claims of being fired upon are referring to the group on the street. The idea that the declaration of receiving fire pertains to another location makes little sense since nothing in the transmissions indicates anything except orders, requests and reports pertaining to the group on camera.

[Barnaby Jones]

Hey.

He knows everything he needs to know to tell trained United States soldiers flying multimillion dollar war machines what they should be doing from the internet video he watched.

He doesn't need you trying to fill his head with some nonsense. If there was another chopper in that video he would have saw it flying around down there.

Sir, if you do not wish to have a mature conversation pertaining to the issue at hand and continue to accuse me of making statements that I have not made than I request you refrain from interrupting until you have gone back and re-read my comments. Thank you.

[brettmojo]

I have. The communications all seem to be pertaining to the group in the street that were shot. The claims of being fired upon are referring to the group on the street. The idea that the declaration of receiving fire pertains to another location makes little sense since nothing in the transmissions indicates anything except orders, requests and reports pertaining to the group on camera.
That's right! You tell em'! Internet videos are INFALLIBLE!!!

[brettmojo]

Sir, if you do not wish to have a mature conversation pertaining to the issue at hand and continue to accuse me of making statements that I have not made than I request you refrain from interrupting until you have gone back and re-read my comments. Thank you.
K Barney, I'll let your years of West Point training dictate military procedure for experienced combat troops in the field. Fire away.

[Barnaby Jones]

Mr. Mojo, you are still accusing me of making statements that I have not made. I would appreciate if you would cease this immediately. I have not stated at any point that I know for sure the details of the situation. All I have offered is my opinion based on the information available courtesy of the unedited, nearly 40 minute clip courtesy of the United States military.

The transmissions, in my opinion, do not justify the action taken and seem to indicate that one of the people involved felt the need to create a false scenario to allow action to be taken against the people gathered in the street. This is not an outright condemnation of the military nor even the individual whose intentions I am questioning. As I have stated several times now, I do not feel that this is necessarily a condemnation of the actions of the U.S. military as opposed to a reflection of the confusing and seemingly never ending nature of the United States' attempt to "fix" Iraq. It is simply not realistic.

I hope my attempts to stir you into an intelligent discussion pertaining to this issue will be successful and you will cease attempting to antagonize your fellow posters into a pointless internet squabble.

[disneyspy]

domo arugato mr mojo,domo

[Chigworthy]

Alex Jones is a paranoid lunatic, but this video should be seen. Here's a shorter version minus his ranting garbage:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


03:15 Radio traffic between the two helicopters describes seeing a weapon. The video footage shown at this time is of the reporters with cameras. There is no way to tell if the pilots are talking about what is seen on the camera we are watching; they may be talking about other individuals in the large group with weapons.

03:35 - 04:00 One individual walking behind the reporters is shown clearly carrying an AK-47. Another is shown carrying a long cylindrical object with a conical end (It looks like an RPG to me).

04:03 The entire group of men, including the reporters and the men with weapons is obscured by a building.

04:05 A man is seen pointing a cylindrical object from around the building. In hindsight, it's pretty clear that this is one of the reporters pointing a camera with a long lens on it down the street, but at the time, the pilots have made no mention of realizing that there are reporters with cameras in the group of armed men.

04:48 Both reporters are shown in the same group with the armed men. The man with the striped shirt facing away from the camera is still holding the AK-47 (You can see the "banana clip" sticking out from his right leg.

04:53 Right before the US rounds begin striking the group, the man with the RPG can be seen at the very left of the group, closest to the wall.

05:09 Radio traffic from a ground unit, sounding urgent: "Bushmaster 2-6, Bushmaster 2-6, We need to move, time now!" I'll do a little Alex Jones-Style assuming. The ground unit may have been taking fire at their location and needed to move through the area that the helicopters were focusing on.

[Snoogans]

Hey.

He knows everything he needs to know to tell trained United States soldiers flying multimillion dollar war machines what they should be doing from the internet video he watched.

He doesn't need you trying to fill his head with some nonsense. If there was another chopper in that video he would have saw it flying around down there.

goddamn thats funny

[Snoogans]

I have. The communications all seem to be pertaining to the group in the street that were shot. The claims of being fired upon are referring to the group on the street. The idea that the declaration of receiving fire pertains to another location makes little sense since nothing in the transmissions indicates anything except orders, requests and reports pertaining to the group on camera.

yea and about that time where for 45-60 seconds we circle behind a building and cant see ANY of the group of people, or did your fancy video cut that part out?

watch the entire unedited video and get a clue. The entire time i was watching, I woulda totally thought everything was legit had i not know before hand who the group in the street was. the cameras sure looked alot like weapons to me, too

[Snoogans]

Mr. Mojo, you are still accusing me of making statements that I have not made. I would appreciate if you would cease this immediately. I have not stated at any point that I know for sure the details of the situation. All I have offered is my opinion based on the information available courtesy of the unedited, nearly 40 minute clip courtesy of the United States military.

The transmissions, in my opinion, do not justify the action taken and seem to indicate that one of the people involved felt the need to create a false scenario to allow action to be taken against the people gathered in the street. This is not an outright condemnation of the military nor even the individual whose intentions I am questioning. As I have stated several times now, I do not feel that this is necessarily a condemnation of the actions of the U.S. military as opposed to a reflection of the confusing and seemingly never ending nature of the United States' attempt to "fix" Iraq. It is simply not realistic.

I hope my attempts to stir you into an intelligent discussion pertaining to this issue will be successful and you will cease attempting to antagonize your fellow posters into a pointless internet squabble.

you fuckin dummy. this wasnt some park in manhattan or something. this was an open warzone. they were on a mission to fly around and FIND GROUPS OF INSURGENTS WITH WEAPONS ON THE GROUND AND FIRE UPON THEM. THATS THE PURPOSE OF SEARCHING FOR ENEMIES IN A WAR, TO KILL THEM. WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE FOUND ENEMIES, YOU ASK FOR PERMISSION TO KILL THEM. IT WAS GIVEN. THEY KILLED THEM.

It wasnt like they were coming back from lunch and said look at those dumb people in the street. fuck it, shoot them. THEY WERE ON ORDERS TO FIND AND SHOOT PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE GATHERED IN A VERY SIMILAR WAY

here is an idea. if a war is going on, and choppers are flying around, DONT WALK AROUND CARRYING SHIT OUTSIDE. Stay inside, go inside. do something else.

[Barnaby Jones]

It seems as if many of you are determined to paint me as accusing the soldiers involved as being criminals or murderers or even that they've done something wrong outside of the purview of their duties. I have never done anything of the sort. My point is, and has been, that they made critical mistakes. Regardless of whether or not someone genuinely thought they were under fire, a serious mistake was made. This mistake was then compounded with the wholly unnecessary strike on the van when they were clearly not even under the mistaken idea that they were under fire and were casually hoping that the wounded reporter could be perceived as having a weapon so that they could fire again.

What this is is a reflection of the unwinnable nature of this war and not some kind of "problem" with the soldiers. These situations are ultimately unavoidable so long as the status quo is perpetuated with the current strategy of occupation Iraq. Hopefully this finally clarifies any confusion any of you might be having regarding my comments.

[Snoogans]

It seems as if many of you are determined to paint me as accusing the soldiers involved as being criminals or murderers or even that they've done something wrong outside of the purview of their duties. I have never done anything of the sort. My point is, and has been, that they made critical mistakes. Regardless of whether or not someone genuinely thought they were under fire, a serious mistake was made. This mistake was then compounded with the wholly unnecessary strike on the van when they were clearly not even under the mistaken idea that they were under fire and were casually hoping that the wounded reporter could be perceived as having a weapon so that they could fire again.

What this is is a reflection of the unwinnable nature of this war and not some kind of "problem" with the soldiers. These situations are ultimately unavoidable so long as the status quo is perpetuated with the current strategy of occupation Iraq. Hopefully this finally clarifies any confusion any of you might be having regarding my comments.

you needed to make that clear. because you started arguing, maybe cause you didnt watch the video, with the side who was arguing we basically willingly slaughtered these people.

anyone who is arguing with you has already said it is wrong that it happened. And the way it was handled after it happened was a fuckin travesty, absolutely. Thats why part of me is glad it was revealed. I just fuckin hate when people try to spin or use pieces of it and act like we were ruthlessly just wiping out citizens in the street. this was an incident during a war time from choppers on patrol for insurgent groups mistaking a group for insurgents with weapons. it looked exactly like what they were supposed to be looking for, so they did what they felt was right for their orders.

the videos above take the radio transmisions and tension breaking comments to try to show us enjoying killing what we knew were civilians

[Barnaby Jones]

you fuckin dummy. this wasnt some park in manhattan or something. this was an open warzone. they were on a mission to fly around and FIND GROUPS OF INSURGENTS WITH WEAPONS ON THE GROUND AND FIRE UPON THEM. THATS THE PURPOSE OF SEARCHING FOR ENEMIES IN A WAR, TO KILL THEM. WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE FOUND ENEMIES, YOU ASK FOR PERMISSION TO KILL THEM. IT WAS GIVEN. THEY KILLED THEM.

It wasnt like they were coming back from lunch and said look at those dumb people in the street. fuck it, shoot them. THEY WERE ON ORDERS TO FIND AND SHOOT PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE GATHERED IN A VERY SIMILAR WAY

here is an idea. if a war is going on, and choppers are flying around, DONT WALK AROUND CARRYING SHIT OUTSIDE. Stay inside, go inside. do something else.

This is not a realistic approach to occupying major urban areas of a nation that is expected to be able to return to be a functioning independent nation. I do not understand why you are being so unnecessarily hostile towards me. My criticisms are rooted in the occupation strategy of the Iraq, not the individual actions of the soldiers. The mistakes made by the soldiers in this instance are indicative of how poorly planned and shortsighted the invasion and occupation was and has remained. It is simply impossible to "win" in Iraq, or anywhere else, fighting a war as seen in the video.

[Snoogans]

This is not a realistic approach to occupying major urban areas of a nation that is expected to be able to return to be a functioning independent nation. I do not understand why you are being so unnecessarily hostile towards me. My criticisms are rooted in the occupation strategy of the Iraq, not the individual actions of the soldiers. The mistakes made by the soldiers in this instance are indicative of how poorly planned and shortsighted the invasion and occupation was and has remained. It is simply impossible to "win" in Iraq, or anywhere else, fighting a war as seen in the video.

probably because you say things like: The transmissions, in my opinion, do not justify the action taken and seem to indicate that one of the people involved felt the need to create a false scenario to allow action to be taken against the people gathered in the street.


OH YEA, YOU DID ACCUSE A SOLDIER OF LYING ABOUT SHOTS BEING FIRED SO THEY COULD SLAUGHTER A GROUP IN TEH STREET, WITHOUT HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE THAT TRANSMISSION CAME FROM. But because you dont, in a video from one chopper that at several times lost visual of the group of people, see a guy fire on anyone, you assume that guy made it up to get to kill people.

[Barnaby Jones]

you needed to make that clear. because you started arguing, maybe cause you didnt watch the video, with the side who was arguing we basically willingly slaughtered these people.

I really don't think anyone has made such an argument except possibly in the first post. I stand by my opinion that the firing on the van was completely unnecessary, and I do believe that the claim by the one soldier that they were fired upon is perhaps a willful fabrication on his part to gain authorization to open fire on the people in the street. I do not, however, think that even if that is the case that this means this some kind of willful slaughter of civilians. It means it was a series of mistakes that resulted in a tragic conclusion.

I apologize for any confusion my comments may have caused.

[Chigworthy]

My point is, and has been, that they made critical mistakes. Regardless of whether or not someone genuinely thought they were under fire, a serious mistake was made. This mistake was then compounded with the wholly unnecessary strike on the van when they were clearly not even under the mistaken idea that they were under fire and were casually hoping that the wounded reporter could be perceived as having a weapon so that they could fire again.


You're saying that they made a mistake engaging the group to begin with. The group clearly had weapons. Read about Mogadishu in 1993 to find out what an RPG can do to a helicopter or a humvee. If soldiers had to not shoot at armed insurgents because there are men with cameras standing next to them, then the insurgents would just have a guy with a camera hang out next to them at all times and be able to do whatever they want.

[Snoogans]

I really don't think anyone has made such an argument except possibly in the first post. I stand by my opinion that the firing on the van was completely unnecessary, and I do believe that the claim by the one soldier that they were fired upon is perhaps a willful fabrication on his part to gain authorization to open fire on the people in the street. I do not, however, think that even if that is the case that this means this some kind of willful slaughter of civilians. It means it was a series of mistakes that resulted in a tragic conclusion.

I apologize for any confusion my comments may have caused.

read my last post about your solider comment. you will see where you lost us, or me at least

[Snoogans]

You're saying that they made a mistake engaging the group to begin with. The group clearly had weapons. Read about Mogadishu in 1993 to find out what an RPG can do to a helicopter or a humvee. If soldiers had to not shoot at armed insurgents because there are men with cameras standing next to them, then the insurgents would just have a guy with a camera hang out next to them at all times and be able to do whatever they want.

i agree. yea the guy had a camera, and yea another guy had a bag. but EVERY GUY i saw in that video close enough to notice has carrying something. and that guy who was at the edge of the building as the chopper circled around def looked to be hiding there and crouched to fire a rocket around the building

[Barnaby Jones]

There is absolutely the same amount of evidence to disprove my opinion that the claim of being fired upon was a fabrication as there is for me to prove it.

And by that I mean there is none except for our subjective interpretations of the video. My opinions of what we can see and hear in that specific instance is no more valid or proven or disproven than those of you so angrily refuting this opinion.

Again, my point is that these mistakes and the soldiers having to be in such a situation are a reflection of the overall mismanagement of this war. This is by no means an isolated incident, and even completely altruistic and honorable soldiers have ultimately killed thousands of innocent Iraqis. This is something that is unavoidable. It's the nature of fighting this kind of war. It is impossible to win "hearts and minds" while having to fight like this.

[Chigworthy]

I really don't think anyone has made such an argument except possibly in the first post. I stand by my opinion that the firing on the van was completely unnecessary, and I do believe that the claim by the one soldier that they were fired upon is perhaps a willful fabrication on his part to gain authorization to open fire on the people in the street. I do not, however, think that even if that is the case that this means this some kind of willful slaughter of civilians. It means it was a series of mistakes that resulted in a tragic conclusion.

I apologize for any confusion my comments may have caused.

Where do you get the idea that in 2007, US Soldiers had to be taking fire in order to use deadly force? Do you even know this to be true? This would be the only reason for your hypothetical fakery on part of the soldiers. The men were clearly armed, a fact which is not being reported in the articles I have read.

[brettmojo]

Hey, what his all comes down to is reporters should feel completely safe walking around a war zone with insurgents carrying AK-47s and RPGs while also carrying cameras that look like weapons themselves. If you're a combat pilot hovering in an Apache attack helicopter half a mile away watching on an infrared camera as insurgents walk around with weapons used to kill your buddies you should take the time to stop, count to ten, take a few big deep breaths and consider that one maybe two of the people in that crowd of hostiles might just happen to be some wacky reporters wondering around in a non green zone. The United States military should be tracking every reporter, blogger and high school newspaper editor at all times to make sure tragedies like this don't occur.

[Chigworthy]

i agree. yea the guy had a camera, and yea another guy had a bag. but EVERY GUY i saw in that video close enough to notice has carrying something. and that guy who was at the edge of the building as the chopper circled around def looked to be hiding there and crouched to fire a rocket around the building

See my previous post with the time breakdown of the video for all the instances where real weapons can be seen in the group of men. The cameras have very little to do with it.

[Snoogans]

There is absolutely the same amount of evidence to disprove my opinion that the claim of being fired upon was a fabrication as there is for me to prove it.

And by that I mean there is none except for our subjective interpretations of the video. My opinions of what we can see and hear in that specific instance is no more valid or proven or disproven than those of you so angrily refuting this opinion.

Again, my point is that these mistakes and the soldiers having to be in such a situation are a reflection of the overall mismanagement of this war. This is by no means an isolated incident, and even completely altruistic and honorable soldiers have ultimately killed thousands of innocent Iraqis. This is something that is unavoidable. It's the nature of fighting this kind of war. It is impossible to win "hearts and minds" while having to fight like this.
yea there is the same, both ways. which is why to assume he did that and even say it as a possibility, knowing what a godawful thing that is for any human to do in any time.


but they had actual weapons on them. you can see them in the video. AK 47's, even before i knew to look i saw them around the guys shoulders. a few civilians died, and a whole bunch of enemies. how is that different than any other war in, say, the entire human history?

[Barnaby Jones]

Where do you get the idea that in 2007, US Soldiers had to be taking fire in order to use deadly force? Do you even know this to be true?

I have not claimed that any soldier has to be under fire to use deadly force. That would be a silly position for me to take.

This would be the only reason for your hypothetical fakery on part of the soldiers. The men were clearly armed, a fact which is not being reported in the articles I have read.

Whether the one soldier fabricated the claim of being under fire is irrelevant to the main point I have been continually repeating. I do not think that even if he did make it up that it caused these people to be killed. That likely would have occurred with or without the claim of coming under fire. I just find it to be a questionable part of the video, but ultimately a relatively minor part of it.

[Snoogans]

There is absolutely the same amount of evidence to disprove my opinion that the claim of being fired upon was a fabrication as there is for me to prove it.

And by that I mean there is none except for our subjective interpretations of the video. My opinions of what we can see and hear in that specific instance is no more valid or proven or disproven than those of you so angrily refuting this opinion.

Again, my point is that these mistakes and the soldiers having to be in such a situation are a reflection of the overall mismanagement of this war. This is by no means an isolated incident, and even completely altruistic and honorable soldiers have ultimately killed thousands of innocent Iraqis. This is something that is unavoidable. It's the nature of fighting this kind of war. It is impossible to win "hearts and minds" while having to fight like this.

also, though you have the same thing as us in terms of evidence, you are arguing on the bad side. you are arguing the part that would be horrifying and a grossly inhumane thing to do, rather than going on the side of the soldier being honest. To even suggest its possible for a soldier to make up he was fired at knowingly, like just to lie to get to kill people, is something you should be jumped on for.

Especially since they HAD WEAPONS. everything you can see in the tape alone was enough that they woulda been allowed to fire, since thats what they were there to be doing. So to even insinuate he just said it to get to kill people he woulda been allowed to kill anyway is horrible.

[Snoogans]

I have not claimed that any soldier has to be under fire to use deadly force. That would be a silly position for me to take.



Whether the one soldier fabricated the claim of being under fire is irrelevant to the main point I have been continually repeating. I do not think that even if he did make it up that it caused these people to be killed. That likely would have occurred with or without the claim of coming under fire. I just find it to be a questionable part of the video, but ultimately a relatively minor part of it.

you asked why people got hostile and angry with you. its cause you made that claim. fuck your point. even saying that this would possibly happen, thinkin a soldier would do that, makes you an asshole.

does it happen, has it ever. Im sure it has. but it still makes you an asshole to even CONSIDER it before its proven completely true

[Barnaby Jones]

but they had actual weapons on them. you can see them in the video. AK 47's, even before i knew to look i saw them around the guys shoulders. a few civilians died, and a whole bunch of enemies. how is that different than any other war in, say, the entire human history?

We actually have no idea if these people were insurgents or not. As you and others have pointed out, this is a war zone. Iraqis are constantly at risk from extremists and insurgents. I trust that none of you are assuming that the only Iraqis with weapons right now are either insurgents, terrorists, or state military/police/security. It's also not accurate to state that even if everyone armed in the video were "enemies" that it was a "whole bunch of enemies" and only a "few civilians." Counting the reporters and the people in the van you have roughly a 50-50 split of civilians and "enemies" killed in this operation. That simply is not productive. Again, I am not accusing the soldiers of doing anything wrong. My point is that we can make no headway when these types of event occur regularly. It's completely counterproductive. The soldiers should not be put into this position in the first place. It's unfair to them.

And this is indeed still a very different type of war compared to most in history. Wars like this and Vietnam are unique in how you have a clearly defined army attempting to defeat a nebulous fighting force that blends in with the civilian population. Most traditional wars of course have civilian causalities, but they also are typically between recognizable armies, and once one of them is defeated the war is over. That's not the case here. Attempting to win this war that way is akin to trying to win the War on Drugs or the War on Terror.

[Snoogans]

We actually have no idea if these people were insurgents or not. As you and others have pointed out, this is a war zone. Iraqis are constantly at risk from extremists and insurgents. I trust that none of you are assuming that the only Iraqis with weapons right now are either insurgents, terrorists, or state military/police/security. It's also not accurate to state that even if everyone armed in the video were "enemies" that it was a "whole bunch of enemies" and only a "few civilians." Counting the reporters and the people in the van you have roughly a 50-50 split of civilians and "enemies" killed in this operation. That simply is not productive. Again, I am not accusing the soldiers of doing anything wrong. My point is that we can make no headway when these types of event occur regularly. It's completely counterproductive. The soldiers should not be put into this position in the first place. It's unfair to them.

And this is indeed still a very different type of war compared to most in history. Wars like this and Vietnam are unique in how you have a clearly defined army attempting to defeat a nebulous fighting force that blends in with the civilian population. Most traditional wars of course have civilian causalities, but they also are typically between recognizable armies, and once one of them is defeated the war is over. That's not the case here. Attempting to win this war that way is akin to trying to win the War on Drugs or the War on Terror.

we have an idea of this

THEY WERE ON A MISSION TO LOOK FOR GROUPS ON THE STREETS WITH WEAPONS AND KILL THEM. thats the reason the choppers were there in the first place. any iraqi force that was allied to us would have known and NOT BEEN WALKING AROUND THE STREETS WITH GUNS.

and even if you are just a citizen. if american choppers are flying around, maybe you shouldnt walk around carrying your guns. GO THE FUCK INSIDE IF YOU ARE A GOOD GUY. YOU SEE THE CHOPPERS. YOU CANT MISS THEM. DONT BE HOLDING FUCKIN GUNS

can you really be that dumb? If i was in a parking lot full of cops do you think i would just light a blunt? Even if im not the dealer they are lookin for, can i expect to NOT be arrested?

[Barnaby Jones]

you asked why people got hostile and angry with you. its cause you made that claim. fuck your point. even saying that this would possibly happen, thinkin a soldier would do that, makes you an asshole.

does it happen, has it ever. Im sure it has. but it still makes you an asshole to even CONSIDER it before its proven completely true

Sir, this is unnecessarily hostile. Any soldier is only human. They are vulnerable to the same emotions, confusions, temptations and mistakes as any other human being. Even if the soldier was intentionally fabricating the claim of taking fire it does not automatically make him into some kind of villain.

[Snoogans]

Sir, this is unnecessarily hostile. Any soldier is only human. They are vulnerable to the same emotions, confusions, temptations and mistakes as any other human being. Even if the soldier was intentionally fabricating the claim of taking fire it does not automatically make him into some kind of villain.

umm, yes it does. a mistake doesnt. ANYBODY intentionally lying about that to allow armed conflicts would be in violation of HUNDREDS of treaties the US has signed. It would make him not only a villain, but probably eligible for death in certain instances. and for you to broach that you see in the video that that could have happened without knowing 100% it did is like sayin someone is possibly a rapist cause you heard him having sex with some chick and she coulda said no before you heard it or yes. its 50/50

do you see my point there?

[Snoogans]

i really have to ask? Do you really believe when you said that if a soldier intentionally fabricated something to KILL people, that that doesnt necc make him a villain?

you are aware the only reason this is even a STORY is because of laws and guidelines we have to follow right? if intentionally fabricating things wasnt against any kind of rules, then this wouldnt even be an issue, it would be daily business.

[Barnaby Jones]

we have an idea of this

THEY WERE ON A MISSION TO LOOK FOR GROUPS ON THE STREETS WITH WEAPONS AND KILL THEM. thats the reason the choppers were there in the first place. any iraqi force that was allied to us would have known and NOT BEEN WALKING AROUND THE STREETS WITH GUNS.

and even if you are just a citizen. if american choppers are flying around, maybe you shouldnt walk around carrying your guns. GO THE FUCK INSIDE IF YOU ARE A GOOD GUY. YOU SEE THE CHOPPERS. YOU CANT MISS THEM. DONT BE HOLDING FUCKIN GUNS

can you really be that dumb? If i was in a parking lot full of cops do you think i would just light a blunt? Even if im not the dealer they are lookin for, can i expect to NOT be arrested?

Sir, I would ask you to please calm down and treat me with the courtesy I have shown everyone else in this thread. I am not insulting you or anyone else and would appreciate the same respect shown to me.

I am not and have not been criticizing these soldiers for obeying orders. If they have been given orders to kill anyone on the street with a weapon then they have been given an impossible task and I feel very sorry for them to have been put into such an absurd situation by such poor planning and occupation management. Iraq is a land awash in weapons. These people have them to defend themselves from the insurgents and the extremists that have invaded their country and have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and continue to do so basically on a daily basis.

I also trust that a quick review of the footage will give you an idea of the sheer distance from the helicopters to the people on the street based on the time lapse between the sound of the weapons firing and the actual impact. This is clearly the result of confusion and mistakes, from the very top to the soldiers involved to the people on the street. Very unfortunate and tragic.

[Snoogans]

Sir, I would ask you to please calm down and treat me with the courtesy I have shown everyone else in this thread. I am not insulting you or anyone else and would appreciate the same respect shown to me.

I am not and have not been criticizing these soldiers for obeying orders. If they have been given orders to kill anyone on the street with a weapon then they have been given an impossible task and I feel very sorry for them to have been put into such an absurd situation by such poor planning and occupation management. Iraq is a land awash in weapons. These people have them to defend themselves from the insurgents and the extremists that have invaded their country and have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and continue to do so basically on a daily basis.

I also trust that a quick review of the footage will give you an idea of the sheer distance from the helicopters to the people on the street based on the time lapse between the sound of the weapons firing and the actual impact. This is clearly the result of confusion and mistakes, from the very top to the soldiers involved to the people on the street. Very unfortunate and tragic.

thats exactly what you did insuating they may have fabricated things or that they should stop and consider these are peaceful iraqi's walking around with guns

you even told me i said myself that this is war time. EXACTLY. So if it was a good iraqi with helicopters in the sky in war time, carrying a gun openly might be the dumbest fuckin thing they could do, and if that was the case, then they deserve to die so they cant repopulate.

thats not a joke, I mean that. You cannot be that stupid and have me care at all what happens to you. CHOPPERS ARE FLYING AROUND TO KILL PEOPLE IN THE STREET WITH GUNS. AND YOU ARE WALKING IN THE STREET WITH GUNS. DONT BE SHOCKED WHEN YOU GET SHOT AT

[Barnaby Jones]

umm, yes it does. a mistake doesnt. ANYBODY intentionally lying about that to allow armed conflicts would be in violation of HUNDREDS of treaties the US has signed. It would make him not only a villain, but probably eligible for death in certain instances. and for you to broach that you see in the video that that could have happened without knowing 100% it did is like sayin someone is possibly a rapist cause you heard him having sex with some chick and she coulda said no before you heard it or yes. its 50/50

do you see my point there?

I certinaly do see your point; I simply disagree. It would be one thing if he did it with absolutely no evidence of a threat, but the people on the street clearly had guns and it's easy to see how the mistaken conclusion was made that they had at least one RPG. It's very possible that in the heat of the moment that the soldier claimed they were fired upon to initiate engagement so as to remove he and his comrades from risk or to stop the people on the street before they realized the choppers were near and escaped with their weapons only to use them at a later date to kill American soldiers. I completely understand certain motivations along these lines if he did indeed fabricate the taking fire claim.

[Snoogans]

I certinaly do see your point; I simply disagree. It would be one thing if he did it with absolutely no evidence of a threat, but the people on the street clearly had guns and it's easy to see how the mistaken conclusion was made that they had at least one RPG. It's very possible that in the heat of the moment that the soldier claimed they were fired upon to initiate engagement so as to remove he and his comrades from risk or to stop the people on the street before they realized the choppers were near and escaped with their weapons only to use them at a later date to kill American soldiers. I completely understand certain motivations along these lines if he did indeed fabricate the taking fire claim.

then you didnt watch the video. no ground soldiers were near the scene. they even radioed early on, one guys said i have no one east of this location, you are safe to fire. the person who said the comment that he thought he was fired on was in another chopper. not a ground soldier who didnt know he had choppers. not a single comm came with ground forces until they started telling the tanks where to find the place they just shot up. it was ANOTHER CHOPPER that thought it was fired on. which the video had a few minutes of time that easily could have happened when we couldnt see.

But you didnt pay full attention cause you wanted to think maybe he made that shit up.

good character though. If I knew what actually board member you were, i might send apache's to your house and fabricate that you are fuckin the pilots wife inside

[Barnaby Jones]

thats exactly what you did insuating they may have fabricated things or that they should stop and consider these are peaceful iraqi's walking around with guns

you even told me i said myself that this is war time. EXACTLY. So if it was a good iraqi with helicopters in the sky in war time, carrying a gun openly might be the dumbest fuckin thing they could do, and if that was the case, then they deserve to die so they cant repopulate.

thats not a joke, I mean that. You cannot be that stupid and have me care at all what happens to you. CHOPPERS ARE FLYING AROUND TO KILL PEOPLE IN THE STREET WITH GUNS. AND YOU ARE WALKING IN THE STREET WITH GUNS. DONT BE SHOCKED WHEN YOU GET SHOT AT

Snoogans, again, look at the time lapse between the sound of the weapons firing and then when they impact. It's clear that these choppers are a long way's away from the location on camera. There's a very good chance that the people simply were unaware of the choppers or just assumed that they were dealing with something elsewhere.

Yes, this is a war zone, but it is a war zone where innocent Iraqis have to defend themselves against the extremists and the insurgents.

[Snoogans]

Snoogans, again, look at the time lapse between the sound of the weapons firing and then when they impact. It's clear that these choppers are a long way's away from the location on camera. There's a very good chance that the people simply were unaware of the choppers or just assumed that they were dealing with something elsewhere.

Yes, this is a war zone, but it is a war zone where innocent Iraqis have to defend themselves against the extremists and the insurgents.

no then you didnt pay attention to the story. Because people who escaped from the area and didnt die said they saw the choppers well before they started firing. as they recounted what happened as witnesses. so they were WELL aware of the choppers with time to drop the weapons or go inside. not CROUCH BEHIND A BUILDING WITH AN RPG AND ACT LIKE YOU ARE AIMING AT THE SKY


GET THE WHOLE STORY

[Barnaby Jones]

then you didnt watch the video. no ground soldiers were near the scene. they even radioed early on, one guys said i have no one east of this location, you are safe to fire. the person who said the comment that he thought he was fired on was in another chopper. not a ground soldier who didnt know he had choppers. not a single comm came with ground forces until they started telling the tanks where to find the place they just shot up. it was ANOTHER CHOPPER that thought it was fired on. which the video had a few minutes of time that easily could have happened when we couldnt see.

But you didnt pay full attention cause you wanted to think maybe he made that shit up.

good character though. If I knew what actually board member you were, i might send apache's to your house and fabricate that you are fuckin the pilots wife inside

No, I'm talking about the helicopters. If they had indeed had an RPG then that posed a threat to the helicopters despite their distance from the location being filmed. I never said or thought that his comment was referring to soldiers on the ground.

[Barnaby Jones]

no then you didnt pay attention to the story. Because people who escaped from the area and didnt die said they saw the choppers well before they started firing. as they recounted what happened as witnesses. so they were WELL aware of the choppers with time to drop the weapons or go inside. not CROUCH BEHIND A BUILDING WITH AN RPG AND ACT LIKE YOU ARE AIMING AT THE SKY


GET THE WHOLE STORY

None of us have the whole story, sir.

Again, I stated the caveat that perhaps they noticed the helicopters and assumed they were dealing with something elsewhere because of the distance. If anything, that lends credence to the idea that these were not insurgents since if they were actually anti-American they likely would have hidden themselves or at least their weapons knowing that helicopters were around. Why would they just stay in the open if they knew that the helicopters were nearby AND were insurgents?

[Snoogans]

No, I'm talking about the helicopters. If they had indeed had an RPG then that posed a threat to the helicopters despite their distance from the location being filmed. I never said or thought that his comment was referring to soldiers on the ground.

and if that was the case, you would get immediate clearance to fire, meaning you wouldnt have to fabricate that you were fired at.

thats why its still illegal to fabricate stuff in war. So, once again, for you to even dare claim that as possible, you better bet 100% sure thats what he did. Cause if you see a guy with an RPG thats clearance to fire on them enough.

GET IT

[Barnaby Jones]

and if that was the case, you would get immediate clearance to fire, meaning you wouldnt have to fabricate that you were fired at.

thats why its still illegal to fabricate stuff in war. So, once again, for you to even dare claim that as possible, you better bet 100% sure thats what he did. Cause if you see a guy with an RPG thats clearance to fire on them enough.

GET IT

I assume you don't think everything in war occurs with 100% certainty, yes? That's simply not realistic. Mistakes happen, people can jump the gun. That's just life.

[Snoogans]

None of us have the whole story, sir.

Again, I stated the caveat that perhaps they noticed the helicopters and assumed they were dealing with something elsewhere because of the distance. If anything, that lends credence to the idea that these were not insurgents since if they were actually anti-American they would have hidden themselves or at least their weapons knowing that helicopters were around.

no you made the point maybe they werent dumb for carrying weapons cause they didnt notice the helicopters. but i said that based on FACTS, they did notice the helicopters, a few MINUTES before this happened. and they continued to have them. so that makes you wrong that they might not be that stupid.

also, if you are an iraqi defending against insurgents. they use guns and ground explosives. YOU WOULDNT HAVE RPGS. maybe ak 47s at most. only insurgants planning to fire at choppers would have weapons to do it. if you are defending yourself against people in the street, you dont have an RPG. you need serious monetary and powerful support for that kinda shit

[Snoogans]

I assume you don't think everything in war occurs with 100% certainty, yes? That's simply not realistic. Mistakes happen, people can jump the gun. That's just life.

right, and ive said thats ok. For you to say that video tells you they coulda lied about it, thats not a mistake. thats on purpose, and thats essentially saying someone could very well be a murderer with you having ZERO hard evidence that they are a murderer

innocent until proven guilty is something our country is built on. for you to make a statement the other way makes you an asshole.

[Barnaby Jones]

right, and ive said thats ok. For you to say that video tells you they coulda lied about it, thats not a mistake. thats on purpose, and thats essentially saying someone could very well be a murderer with you having ZERO hard evidence that they are a murderer

Things simply are not that cut and dry in the middle of combat. If you want to demonize someone in such a way based on the scenario I presented, that is your prerogative. I simply do not share that opinion.

[Snoogans]

Things simply are not that cut and dry in the middle of combat. If you want to demonize someone in such a way based on the scenario I presented, that is your prerogative. I simply do not share that opinion.

its not an opinion. you said what that video shows you is possibly that he made that up cause you didnt see what he claimed happened when he was no where near you. that violates a basic right people are to receive in this country. you are bringing up things on assumptions to say they are guilty of essentially genocide. you have no right, based on anything in that video, to make that statement.

saying they may have thought they were fired at and werent is fine. sayin they may have lied to get clearance to fire, which is SO illegal, is wrong. thats opinion technically, but if you dont see why its wrong for you to even say that, then this is either a bit, you are a douche, or you just wanna make people fight so you can keep your character going and keep calling people sir like some kinda british sissy

[Chigworthy]

Whether the one soldier fabricated the claim of being under fire is irrelevant to the main point I have been continually repeating. I do not think that even if he did make it up that it caused these people to be killed. That likely would have occurred with or without the claim of coming under fire. I just find it to be a questionable part of the video, but ultimately a relatively minor part of it.

It's hard to discern your "main point" when you are "continuously repeating" that a US soldier lied about taking fire in order to kill people:

For me, it's nothing about the language the guys are using so much as it sounds like these guys are needlessly targeting groups of people and possibly making up reasons to shoot such groups.

You hear the one guy clearly stating that their targets are firing when it is obvious from the footage they haven't done anything that looks anything like a hostile action. There was definitely no reason to shoot up the van.


And I think it must be repeated that the one guy was claiming they were fired on when there was nothing in the video that resembles any kind of combat action. It would be one thing if they were acting based on the assumption that the group had weapons, but we clearly see that the one soldier was completely making up a scenario to fire on this group.



And then this:

I certinaly do see your point; I simply disagree. It would be one thing if he did it with absolutely no evidence of a threat, but the people on the street clearly had guns and it's easy to see how the mistaken conclusion was made that they had at least one RPG.

How is it a mistaken conclusion when you can see the thin man in the light colored shirt holding an RPG at two different times in the video?

[Snoogans]

sayin there was no reason to shoot up the van is awesome too.

assuming these are insurgents, why would you shoot a van that comes to pick up the one insurgent that was still alive and tryin to get away. Obviously, it would NEVER be more insurgents coming to pick up the fallen insurgents who hadnt died.

yea no reason to fire on the van. esp when in the video you can see the kids in it. the kids they didnt even know was there til 12 minutes later when ground forces arrived.

[Barnaby Jones]

It's hard to discern your "main point" when you are "continuously repeating" that a US soldier lied about taking fire in order to kill people:

Both of those quotes were on the first page. By the time you entered into conversation with me I had clearly moved on from that issue and was not harping on the soldier for possibly having made up the taking fire scenario. I assume you're still making your way to the posts after those where I made it clear again and again that I think this is indicative of a problem much larger than a phantom scenario of helicopters mercilessly and gleefully and knowingly mowing down anyone they see.

And then this:



How is it a mistaken conclusion when you can see the thin man in the light colored shirt holding an RPG at two different times in the video?

Are there any reports that state an RPG was found on the scene? I've seen it stated that there were indeed guns, but there is in no way proof in the video that any of them had an RPG. It's impossible to clearly make out what is believed to be the RPG.

[Barnaby Jones]

sayin there was no reason to shoot up the van is awesome too.

assuming these are insurgents, why would you shoot a van that comes to pick up the one insurgent that was still alive and tryin to get away. Obviously, it would NEVER be more insurgents coming to pick up the fallen insurgents who hadnt died.

yea no reason to fire on the van. esp when in the video you can see the kids in it. the kids they didnt even know was there til 12 minutes later when ground forces arrived.

I didn't say they should have been able to make out the kids.

I think it's appalling that you think it is justified to fire on people tending to the wounded. That clearly flies in the face of any kind of "rules of warfare." Just because someone is an insurgent doesn't mean they are to be denied medical care if they have been wounded and clearly incapacitated. It would be one thing if the people in the van had weapons or if the soldiers even thought they had weapons, but it's obvious from the transmissions on the tape that neither scenario was a conclusion reached or even suspected by the helicopter crews.

Besides, why is the scenario you presented so much more likely than people simply helping someone who has been wounded? This is a country that sees daily violence and the citizens are constantly reacting to help their fellow Iraqis. Are they supposed to just ignore anyone who has been injured or wounded? Again, this speaks to the overall nature of what a mess this war is. Everything about it is unrealistic.

[Snoogans]

Both of those quotes were on the first page. By the time you entered into conversation with me I had clearly moved on from that issue and was not harping on the soldier for possibly having made up the taking fire scenario. I assume you're still making your way to the posts after those where I made it clear again and again that I think this is indicative of a problem much larger than a phantom scenario of helicopters mercilessly and gleefully and knowingly mowing down anyone they see.



Are there any reports that state an RPG was found on the scene? I've seen it stated that there were indeed guns, but there is in no way proof in the video that any of them had an RPG. It's impossible to clearly make out what is believed to be the RPG.

watch again. especailly the part where the chopper, before any firing, circles around behind the builds below the group. right as he goes by, a guy is kneeled down right at the edge of the building sorta lookin around it with a large black tube on his shoulder. it seriously looked like he was aiming at the chopper for a second. as they come back around he is walking across the street with a black tube hanging from his should on a strap. you get a closer look at him later standing near the one reporter and you can clearly see it again hanging behind him. id estimate it was around 4-5 feet long and the FIRST thing that pops in my head when i see it is "oh shit that guy is rockin a bazooka"

[Snoogans]

I didn't say they should have been able to make out the kids.

I think it's appalling that you think it is justified to fire on people tending to the wounded. That clearly flies in the face of any kind of "rules of warfare." Just because someone is an insurgent doesn't mean they are to be denied medical care if they have been wounded and clearly incapacitated. It would be one thing if the people in the van had weapons or if the soldiers even thought they had weapons, but it's obvious from the transmissions on the tape that neither scenario was a conclusion reached or even suspected by the helicopter crews.

.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you think im just making up some unwritten code of rules. there are actual put to paper laws to warfare. Firing on enemies or perceived enemies does not violate that.

You are acting like some guy got hurt and a local ambulance came to pick them up. are you fuckin serious with this shit? if us soldiers are fired upon and injured, do you really think they dont fire on the humvees and other vehicles that come to get the guys? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Firing on EMENIES OF WAR who come to rescue THEIR FELLOW ENEMIES is not against anything, ITS THE POINT. You took out a bunch of enemies. Enemies come to help with enemy vehicles, you take out those enemies.

denied medical care are you fuckin kidding? You really dont get it? IT WAS AN UNMARKED BLACK VAN COMING TO PICK UP PERCEIVED INSURGENTS. THAT MEANS ITS INSURGENTS.

the missions were to KILL ALL INSURGENTS

[Barnaby Jones]

watch again. especailly the part where the chopper, before any firing, circles around behind the builds below the group. right as he goes by, a guy is kneeled down right at the edge of the building sorta lookin around it with a large black tube on his shoulder. it seriously looked like he was aiming at the chopper for a second. as they come back around he is walking across the street with a black tube hanging from his should on a strap. you get a closer look at him later standing near the one reporter and you can clearly see it again hanging behind him. id estimate it was around 4-5 feet long and the FIRST thing that pops in my head when i see it is "oh shit that guy is rockin a bazooka"

Right, so that would be something that would be obviously mentioned in any formal report or reporting of this situation. For all I know, that is the case. I have no idea whether there was an RPG or not. We should determine this for sure if possible.

[Snoogans]

Right, so that would be something that would be obviously mentioned in any formal report or reporting of this situation. For all I know, that is the case. I have no idea whether there was an RPG or not. We should determine this for sure if possible.

ok but this sorta makes you look like a dick by saying there is nothing to be perceived as weapons and that, as you put it in one instance that one guy clearly made up something that didnt happen (despite being large chunks of the video where you cant see what happens) so that they could fire on these people

but just the thought that those were POSSIBLY RPGs is grounds enough to be cleared to shoot. so you accused someone of something unnecessary to gain clearance for something. essentially you accused him of something that would get him the death penalty

then said some nonsense about the guys in the chopper doing the same thing by denying medical care to an injured person when it was a perceived enemy vehicle, and probably actually WAS, that came to get them

[Snoogans]

and on an aside, the one solider made a GOOD POINT when he said thats what you get for bringing kids to a fight. even if that group of people wasnt there to fight, the all got shot by choppers. AFTER THAT, this dickhead in a van with kids in it drives into the warzone area to attempt to pick up someone who was shot. WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING.

in fact, now that i thought more about it.

Im glad that EVERYONE in that video is dead. If they werent bad guys, the ones who were walking around with guns in plain site of guys looking to shoot people with guns were so stupid they deserved it. the journalists who chose to hang out with guys with guns and carry shit that coulda looked like guns under the same circumstances are also so dumb they deserved it. and then the guy who drives a van with kids in it into an area choppers are ALREADY shooting at is so dumb he deserved it.

the only ones who i feel bad for are the kids, and the only one to blame for that is their dumbass caretaker

[Barnaby Jones]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you think im just making up some unwritten code of rules. there are actual put to paper laws to warfare. Firing on enemies or perceived enemies does not violate that.

You are acting like some guy got hurt and a local ambulance came to pick them up. are you fuckin serious with this shit? if us soldiers are fired upon and injured, do you really think they dont fire on the humvees and other vehicles that come to get the guys? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Firing on EMENIES OF WAR who come to rescue THEIR FELLOW ENEMIES is not against anything, ITS THE POINT. You took out a bunch of enemies. Enemies come to help with enemy vehicles, you take out those enemies.

denied medical care are you fuckin kidding? You really dont get it? IT WAS AN UNMARKED BLACK VAN COMING TO PICK UP PERCEIVED INSURGENTS. THAT MEANS ITS INSURGENTS.

the missions were to KILL ALL INSURGENTS

Sir, it is ironic that you are actually making my points for me. Again, it's reflective of the horrible nature of this war. They simply cannot operate with the idea that every person they encounter is the enemy, yet they HAVE to operate with the idea that every person they encounter is potentially the enemy. It's completely a lose-lose situation.

And your comments are seemingly made with the idea that they know that they are seeing "enemies of war." They do not. It's one thing to attack the people with the weapons, but another to attack people who are unarmed and are just as likely to be innocent civilians as they are other insurgents coming to rescue their own. No weapons were observed, and it was ultimately unnecessary to destroy the van. How likely do you think it was that the insurgents had a van shadowing them in case they had to take someone to the hospital? The helicopters did not notice any vehicle lingering nearby. This appears to be a vehicle that has come on the scene and is helping someone who is injured. Since there is no visible threat or weapons and all of the other suspected insurgents are dead and their weapons well away from the van and nobody is attempting to recover them, why not err on the side of caution and opt to not destroy the van and potentially everyone in it who seemingly has nothing to do with any of these people over one seriously wounded suspected insurgent? They could track the van to wherever it was going instead.

[Chigworthy]

ok but this sorta makes you look like a dick by saying there is nothing to be perceived as weapons and that, as you put it in one instance that one guy clearly made up something that didnt happen (despite being large chunks of the video where you cant see what happens) so that they could fire on these people

but just the thought that those were POSSIBLY RPGs is grounds enough to be cleared to shoot. so you accused someone of something unnecessary to gain clearance for something. essentially you accused him of something that would get him the death penalty

then said some nonsense about the guys in the chopper doing the same thing by denying medical care to an injured person when it was a perceived enemy vehicle, and probably actually WAS, that came to get them

Snoogans, he made those points on the first page, so you can't call him out for those now.

[Snoogans]

Sir, it is ironic that you are actually making my points for me. Again, it's reflective of the horrible nature of this war. They simply cannot operate with the idea that every person they encounter is the enemy, yet they HAVE to operate with the idea that every person they encounter is potentially the enemy. It's completely a lose-lose situation.

And your comments are seemingly made with the idea that they know that they are seeing "enemies of war." They do not. It's one thing to attack the people with the weapons, but another to attack people who are unarmed and are just as likely to be innocent civilians as they are other insurgents coming to rescue their own. No weapons were observed, and it was ultimately unnecessary to destroy the van. How likely do you think it was that the insurgents had a van shadowing them in case they had to take someone to the hospital? The helicopters did not notice any vehicle lingering nearby. This appears to be a vehicle that has come on the scene and is helping someone who is injured. Since there is no visible threat or weapons and all of the other suspected insurgents are dead and their weapons well away from the van and nobody is attempting to recover them, why not err on the side of caution and opt to not destroy the van and potentially everyone in it who seemingly has nothing to do with any of these people over one seriously wounded suspected insurgent? They could track the van to wherever it was going instead.

you are taking it from the point that people dont know what the fuck is up. its not like these were people hanging out playing basketball and we perceived them as enemies. they were fuckin walking around in a large group carrying guns. the people there KNOW what we are there doing and if they choose to walk around in large groups with guns, they are fuckin retarded and shouldnt procreate and so i feel no sadness at all for that.

had there been ANYTHING in the full video that for one second made it seem like they were wrong about what they were doing before they did it and during it, i would feel horrible, and i would be with you.

but everything in this video looks like stuff that should have happened. every step of the way i was like ok ok makes sense ok, and was waiting for the part that i was supposed to be outraged about. Do I want innocent people killed, no, of course not. but at some point, you gotta stop feeling bad for consequences people incur for not spending 1 second using their fuckin brain. PERIOD

[Snoogans]

Snoogans, he made those points on the first page, so you can't call him out for those now.

fuck. im sorry. thats right

[Barnaby Jones]

and on an aside, the one solider made a GOOD POINT when he said thats what you get for bringing kids to a fight. even if that group of people wasnt there to fight, the all got shot by choppers. AFTER THAT, this dickhead in a van with kids in it drives into the warzone area to attempt to pick up someone who was shot. WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING.

Sir, they were never out of the war zone. The entire city is a war zone. How do you know they weren't just coming up the road and saw the guy wounded in the street, or he was calling for help and they heard him as they were driving by/up? Maybe he was shouting, "I'm a reporter and I've been hurt. Please help me." Can we really begrudge people for wanting to help someone else in such a situation? Just because the people on the street saw the helicopters earlier doesn't mean the people in the van ever did. We can still see the time lapse between the sound of firing and the impact on the van. Perhaps they were unaware of the helicopters and saw the bodies and the smoke and thought a bomb had gone off and were trying to help the obviously injured person with that in mind. We simply don't know.

in fact, now that i thought more about it.

Im glad that EVERYONE in that video is dead. If they werent bad guys, the ones who were walking around with guns in plain site of guys looking to shoot people with guns were so stupid they deserved it. the journalists who chose to hang out with guys with guns and carry shit that coulda looked like guns under the same circumstances are also so dumb they deserved it. and then the guy who drives a van with kids in it into an area choppers are ALREADY shooting at is so dumb he deserved it.

the only ones who i feel bad for are the kids, and the only one to blame for that is their dumbass caretaker

The sad reality is that people all over Iraq are out in the open with weapons who aren't part of the security forces or insurgencies or extremists so that they have protection against the insurgents or extremists or even just local enemies taking advantage of the situation. I respectfully disagree with the idea that anyone involved necessarily deserved for this to happen. I see it as a tragedy for everyone involved, and just the sad reality of this war.

[Barnaby Jones]

Snoogans, he made those points on the first page, so you can't call him out for those now.

I don't understand the repeated snide comments in my direction when I have only respectfully replied to everyone I have responded to in this thread. I never said I could not be "called out" for what I had said. I clarified my position after those posts, so I do not understand the point of going back to them as if I never expanded upon those thoughts.

[Barnaby Jones]

you are taking it from the point that people dont know what the fuck is up. its not like these were people hanging out playing basketball and we perceived them as enemies. they were fuckin walking around in a large group carrying guns. the people there KNOW what we are there doing and if they choose to walk around in large groups with guns, they are fuckin retarded and shouldnt procreate and so i feel no sadness at all for that.

had there been ANYTHING in the full video that for one second made it seem like they were wrong about what they were doing before they did it and during it, i would feel horrible, and i would be with you.

but everything in this video looks like stuff that should have happened. every step of the way i was like ok ok makes sense ok, and was waiting for the part that i was supposed to be outraged about. Do I want innocent people killed, no, of course not. but at some point, you gotta stop feeling bad for consequences people incur for not spending 1 second using their fuckin brain. PERIOD

I don't see why we both can't have our differing opinions on this matter. I respect your perspective and hope that you can do the same towards mine. There's really no way for any of us to be definitively right or wrong with the course this discussion has taken.

[Chigworthy]

I don't understand the repeated snide comments in my direction when I have only respectfully replied to everyone I have responded to in this thread. I never said I could not be "called out" for what I had said. I clarified my position after those posts, so I do not understand the point of going back to them as if I never expanded upon those thoughts.

Sir, I don't understand why you keep bringing up old posts of mine. I've done nothing to deserve this harsh treatment, and you've made me cry.

[Barnaby Jones]

Yikes, I didn't think this place would be so exhausting! This is a much more intense discussion than I was expecting! Is this usually how it is here when discussion current affairs?

[Snoogans]

Sir, they were never out of the war zone. The entire city is a war zone. How do you know they weren't just coming up the road and saw the guy wounded in the street, or he was calling for help and they heard him as they were driving by/up? Maybe he was shouting, "I'm a reporter and I've been hurt. Please help me." Can we really begrudge people for wanting to help someone else in such a situation? Just because the people on the street saw the helicopters earlier doesn't mean the people in the van ever did. We can still see the time lapse between the sound of firing and the impact on the van. Perhaps they were unaware of the helicopters and saw the bodies and the smoke and thought a bomb had gone off and were trying to help the obviously injured person with that in mind. We simply don't know.

Snoogans response: You are clearly missing the point. If you are in a van down the block with your kids in it. and an armed forces helicopter fires on a group of people, many of which had weapons. WHY WOULD YOU DRIVE DOWN THE BLOCK TO GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO HEAR THEM OR KNOW ANYTHING. its not like the van was across the street. it drove in from far enough up the block that it took a minute to get there. and then it attempted to pick up what was an obvious target of MILITARY CHOPPERS. Can you really say that thats not the dumbest person in the history of the world? Seriously?



The sad reality is that people all over Iraq are out in the open with weapons who aren't part of the security forces or insurgencies or extremists so that they have protection against the insurgents or extremists or even just local enemies taking advantage of the situation. I respectfully disagree with the idea that anyone involved necessarily deserved for this to happen. I see it as a tragedy for everyone involved, and just the sad reality of this war.

yea that is a sad reality. but that doesnt mean 5 minutes after you see US forces in the sky, you should continue to stand there in the street with your weapons, at times appearing to point them toward the sky, and then be like oh what the fuck just happened when the choppers finally say what the fuck is this shit, and blow your brains out.

The level of retardation across the board by the people on the ground needs to also be factored in here. its not like they didnt know that us forces would fire on people in large groups in teh streets with weapons.

[Barnaby Jones]

Sir, I don't understand why you keep bringing up old posts of mine. I've done nothing to deserve this harsh treatment, and you've made me cry.

I do apologize if I have frustrated you with my posts. I will attempt to clarify my position better in the future. I really don't people to be mad over my opinions! Can we call a truce?

[Snoogans]

I don't see why we both can't have our differing opinions on this matter. I respect your perspective and hope that you can do the same towards mine. There's really no way for any of us to be definitively right or wrong with the course this discussion has taken.

yea you are right, except my opinion didnt accuse someone of being the worst kinda person in the world with zero proof. i gave the person the benefit of innocence before being proven guilty. you went against a principle that is the right of everyone in this country. that makes you an asshole, and thats why i dont respect what you say

[Chigworthy]

I do apologize if I have frustrated you with my posts. I will attempt to clarify my position better in the future. I really don't people to be mad over my opinions! Can we call a truce?

Fair enough. I accept your apology and admission of complete douchery.

[Barnaby Jones]

yea that is a sad reality. but that doesnt mean 5 minutes after you see US forces in the sky, you should continue to stand there in the street with your weapons, at times appearing to point them toward the sky, and then be like oh what the fuck just happened when the choppers finally say what the fuck is this shit, and blow your brains out.

The level of retardation across the board by the people on the ground needs to also be factored in here. its not like they didnt know that us forces would fire on people in large groups in teh streets with weapons.

Snoogans, I already addressed this in the post you replied to:

How do you know they weren't just coming up the road and saw the guy wounded in the street, or he was calling for help and they heard him as they were driving by/up? Maybe he was shouting, "I'm a reporter and I've been hurt. Please help me." Can we really begrudge people for wanting to help someone else in such a situation? Just because the people on the street saw the helicopters earlier doesn't mean the people in the van ever did. We can still see the time lapse between the sound of firing and the impact on the van. Perhaps they were unaware of the helicopters and saw the bodies and the smoke and thought a bomb had gone off and were trying to help the obviously injured person with that in mind. We simply don't know.

We have no idea if the people in the van ever saw the helicopters or were aware a helicopter strike occurred. Given the prevalence of extremist and insurgents attacks with bombs and explosives it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they only saw the aftermath and figured that a terrorist bomb had gone off the the wounded man was a victim of such an attack. If you look at the footage of the aftermaths of these all too common events you'll see Iraqis always rushing to help their fellow citizens. Very sad.

[Barnaby Jones]

Fair enough. I accept your apology and admission of complete douchery.

That's completely unnecessary. If you cannot refrain from insults I will have to ask you to leave me alone. I assume the administrators here will not look kindly on such unwarranted attacks on someone who has done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment and I will not hesitate to involve them.

I'm sorry we could not have come to an understanding.

[Snoogans]

I do apologize if I have frustrated you with my posts. I will attempt to clarify my position better in the future. I really don't people to be mad over my opinions! Can we call a truce?

sir, i really dont understand why you think people seriously hate you because they are disagreeing with your points on the internet. all ive done this entire time is post my opinion of you and what you said and didnt expect you to get so uppity about it.


JESUS CHRIST, RELAX. Did you ever consider that people add in certain things and say things certain ways cause its funnier to the other people viewing for me to say you are retarded then to say im sorry sir but i simply do not agree with your philosophies?


listen, you jumped to alot of conclusions to say that you think people did alot of fucked up shit without the proper reason or that they made up the proper reason. you clearly stated this in your earlier posts.

when someone says something so retarded, or cant understand simple things as why a VEHICLE PICKING UP MILITARY ENEMIES SHOULD BE CONDIDERED AN ENEMY, then you are just clearly not intelligent enough to have these debates.

Opinions or not, some things are fuckin common sense and its safe, at times like this one, to tell someone they are wrong for their opinions.

but if you actually took serious that i was gonna send apaches to your house to shoot you cause i was angry over a debate, then you have no idea what the fuck messageboards are even for

[Chigworthy]

That's completely unnecessary. If you cannot refrain from insults I will have to ask you to leave me alone. I assume the administrators here will not look kindly on such unwarranted attacks on someone who has done nothing to deserve this kind of treatment and I will not hesitate to involve them.

I'm sorry we could not have come to an understanding.

Now you've gone and broken the truce. I feel sick over this conflict we're having.

[Barnaby Jones]

yea you are right, except my opinion didnt accuse someone of being the worst kinda person in the world with zero proof. i gave the person the benefit of innocence before being proven guilty. you went against a principle that is the right of everyone in this country. that makes you an asshole, and thats why i dont respect what you say

This is completely out of line. As I said to Chigworthy, please refrain from responding to my posts if you cannot refrain from calling me names and insulting me. I have done nothing of the sort to you and it is very childish. I have made it very clear that I am not accusing the soldier along the lines as you have described. Please leave me alone from here on out if you can't speak to me as civil adults do. Thank you.

[Snoogans]

Snoogans, I already addressed this in the post you replied to:



We have no idea if the people in the van ever saw the helicopters or were aware a helicopter strike occurred. Given the prevalence of extremist and insurgents attacks with bombs and explosives it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they only saw the aftermath and figured that a terrorist bomb had gone off the the wounded man was a victim of such an attack. If you look at the footage of the aftermaths of these all too common events you'll see Iraqis always rushing to help their fellow citizens. Very sad.

are you fucking serious bro? have you ever even shot a gun? once? I could stand on the corner of 34th and 7th and fire 1 shot into the air with a .45 and with the exception of people with either loud headphones or car windows closed and music on loud, EVERYONE within 2 blocks would know a gun was fired off.

If an apache helicopter shot 5 seconds of rounds withint 1000 feet of where you are, you would CLEARLY know it. nevermind the fact that they shot in like 5 different 20 seconds bursts. everyone within 2 miles of this area knew what the fuck was happening. THATS WHY SOME OF THE WITNESSES WERE SMART ENOUGH TO GO THE FUCK INSIDE

[Snoogans]

This is completely out of line. As I said to Chigworthy, please refrain from responding to my posts if you cannot refrain from calling me names and insulting me. I have done nothing of the sort to you and it is very childish. I have made it very clear that I am not accusing the soldier along the lines as you have described. Please leave me alone from here on out if you can't speak to me as civil adults do. Thank you.

im sorry. i didnt mean to hurt your feelings. I woulda been more polite if I had known you were such a faggot about things

[Barnaby Jones]

are you fucking serious bro? have you ever even shot a gun? once? I could stand on the corner of 34th and 7th and fire 1 shot into the air with a .45 and with the exception of people with either loud headphones or car windows closed and music on loud, EVERYONE within 2 blocks would know a gun was fired off.

If an apache helicopter shot 5 seconds of rounds withint 1000 feet of where you are, you would CLEARLY know it. nevermind the fact that they shot in like 5 different 20 seconds bursts. everyone within 2 miles of this area knew what the fuck was happening. THATS WHY SOME OF THE WITNESSES WERE SMART ENOUGH TO GO THE FUCK INSIDE

Snoogans, we both agree that this is a war zone. The sad reality is that people are likely hearing explosions and gunshots all the time. It's unrealistic to expect that the average citizen is going to be versed in the specifics of munitions to know what exactly had occurred. I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption at all.

[Chigworthy]

im sorry. i didnt mean to hurt your feelings. I woulda been more polite if I had known you were such a faggot about things

What a terrible and hurtful thing to say. Now my wife thinks I'm crazy for belly laughing at a message board.

[Barnaby Jones]

im sorry. i didnt mean to hurt your feelings. I woulda been more polite if I had known you were such a faggot about things

It's unfortunate that you have felt the need to sink to such levels when I have been nothing but respectful, polite and reasonable with you. I have reported the posts where you have needlessly attacked and harassed me. Please leave me alone unless you wish to have a normal conversation that doesn't involve attacking someone over their opinion.

[Snoogans]

Snoogans, we both agree that this is a war zone. The sad reality is that people are likely hearing explosions and gunshots all the time. It's unrealistic to expect that the average citizen is going to be versed in the specifics of munitions to know what exactly had occurred. I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption at all.

yea. its so tough to know that "munitions" are near you when you hear giagantic amounts of gun shots for extended periods of times while watching the road IN FRONT OF THE VAN you are driving getting ripped apart by bullets. Goddamn i thought they were just filmin a movie or something. I wanted to be an extra


there is one assumption that is completely reasonable. You are fuckin retarded, and I wish you were in that van

[Snoogans]

What a terrible and hurtful thing to say. Now my wife thinks I'm crazy for belly laughing at a message board.

yea i was proud of that one myself

[Chigworthy]

It's unfortunate that you have felt the need to sink to such levels when I have been nothing but respectful, polite and reasonable with you. I have reported the posts where you have needlessly attacked and harassed me. Please leave me alone unless you wish to have a normal conversation that doesn't involve attacking someone over their opinion.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/22142Y~You-Go-Girl-Posters.jpg

[Snoogans]

It's unfortunate that you have felt the need to sink to such levels when I have been nothing but respectful, polite and reasonable with you. I have reported the posts where you have needlessly attacked and harassed me. Please leave me alone unless you wish to have a normal conversation that doesn't involve attacking someone over their opinion.

you accused someone of making things up so they would be allowed to murder women and children in broad day light in the middle of a busy mall full of tourists. that makes you the worst of the worst

welcome back, gvac, its been quiet since you left.

[underdog]

I think what snoogans is trying to say is fuck the troops.

[Snoogans]

I think what snoogans is trying to say is fuck the troops.

no, fuck the women and children. the troops are awesome. they get to lie about stuff and kill people and not care and the government will lie about it

[Chigworthy]

I think what snoogans is trying to say is fuck the troops.

I heard him say it, and I've reported him.

[Barnaby Jones]

you accused someone of making things up so they would be allowed to murder women and children in broad day light in the middle of a busy mall full of tourists. that makes you the worst of the worst

I'm going to break my promise to not respond to your inflammatory garbage in this thread to refute this. This is by far the most insulting thing you've directed my way. I went out of my way to clarify that I do NOT think any of the soldiers acted as they did out of the desire to massacre innocent people. Please do not lower yourself even further by posting such lies. I don't understand why you feel such hostility towards me, but I would appreciate it if you would not slander me in this way. Thank you.

[Snoogans]

this is my favorite thread ever now

[Snoogans]

I'm going to break my promise to not respond to your inflammatory garbage in this thread to refute this. This is by far the most insulting thing you've directed my way. I went out of my way to clarify that I do NOT think any of the soldiers acted as they did out of the desire to massacre innocent people. Please do not lower yourself even further by posting such lies. I don't understand why you feel such hostility towards me, but I would appreciate it if you would not slander me in this way. Thank you.

i read it with my own eyes, here I found it

I find it completely appauling that a US soldier would make up something like saying he had shots fired on him when clearly that never happened. then you see in the video that they open fire on a starbucks, McDonalds, internet cafe, and several children who were playing soccer in the street. Fuck the United States. They should court marshall the entire US Army


what a scumbag

[PapaBear]

Wow. Fucking wow.

[weekapaugjz]

what a scumbag

such foul language.

[badmonkey]

I'm going to break my promise to not respond to your inflammatory garbage in this thread to refute this. This is by far the most insulting thing you've directed my way. I went out of my way to clarify that I do NOT think any of the soldiers acted as they did out of the desire to massacre innocent people. Please do not lower yourself even further by posting such lies. I don't understand why you feel such hostility towards me, but I would appreciate it if you would not slander me in this way. Thank you.

I don't think I'm gonna do hamster style anymore.

[disneyspy]

I don't think I'm gonna do hamster style anymore.

when did you people stop using gerbils?

[Serpico1103]

I saw the video, 17 minute version, not sure if I missed anything.
The soldiers followed orders, seemed to act according to protocol.
I think this is an example of why you can't use military to police people.
These guys were acting as if they are at war. They see a camera and think it is a weapon.
The initial engagement seems ok (assuming they really thought the men had an rpg, which it appears they did), not sure if they had reason to suspect these men of being insurgents.
However, when they engage the van with the men helping the wounded, that may cross the line.
Would any of this have come out if two Reuters employees weren't killed?

I hate the people who have a problem with the pilot chatter. Before I heard it, I thought they were going to be screaming obscenities and acting like high school kids. I think their behavior was as well as can be expected, when you are asking young men to execute people.

[Snoogans]

I saw the video, 17 minute version, not sure if I missed anything.
The soldiers followed orders, seemed to act according to protocol.
I think this is an example of why you can't use military to police people.
These guys were acting as if they are at war. They see a camera and think it is a weapon.
The initial engagement seems ok (assuming they really thought the men had an rpg, which it appears they did), not sure if they had reason to suspect these men of being insurgents.
However, when they engage the van with the men helping the wounded, that may cross the line.
Would any of this have come out if two Reuters employees weren't killed?

I hate the people who have a problem with the pilot chatter. Before I heard it, I thought they were going to be screaming obscenities and acting like high school kids. I think their behavior was as well as can be expected, when you are asking young men to execute people.


why? they fired on targets. then an unmarked vehicle came to help targets. If US soldiers were fired on, do you really think they wouldnt fire on the US army hummers that come get them? Seriously?

[Serpico1103]

why? they fired on targets. then an unmarked vehicle came to help targets. If US soldiers were fired on, do you really think they wouldnt fire on the US army hummers that come get them? Seriously?

I believe according to a cited ex-military officer, firing on people providing medical help is against the rules of engagement.

I am not blaming the soldiers. I can't imagine operating in that environment. I think they are probably not given appropriate training for policing as opposed to waging war. Waging war is simple, mostly black and white. Policing is filled with gray.

I don't care what "they" would do. And who is they? In this case, maybe kids, reporters, and civilians?

[Snoogans]

I believe according to a cited ex-military officer, firing on people providing medical help is against the rules of engagement.

I am not blaming the soldiers. I can't imagine operating in that environment. I think they are probably not given appropriate training for policing as opposed to waging war. Waging war is simple, mostly black and white. Policing is filled with gray.

I don't care what "they" would do. And who is they? In this case, maybe kids, reporters, and civilians?

i believe firing on medical vehicles is against the rules. not some unmarked shit. I dont know that for sure though

[Serpico1103]

i believe firing on medical vehicles is against the rules. not some unmarked shit. I dont know that for sure though

I don't think it matters if they are marked. If they are non-combatants, they are non-combatants. Again, I know this is grayed by an insurgency, not adhering to rules themselves. But, we must endeavor to to remain on the right side. If we make a mistake, that is acceptable, if the government covers-up it up and doesn't rectify what led to the mistakes, that is unacceptable.

Good article, explaining the issues raised and how with out more info it is not clear if they acted properly or not.
http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fonline%2Fblo gs%2Fnewsdesk%2F2010%2F04%2Fthe-wikileaks-video-and-the-rules-of-engagement.html

[Snoogans]

I don't think it matters if they are marked. If they are non-combatants, they are non-combatants. Again, I know this is grayed by an insurgency, not adhering to rules themselves. But, we must endeavor to to remain on the right side. If we make a mistake, that is acceptable, if the government covers-up it up and doesn't rectify what led to the mistakes, that is unacceptable.

Good article, explaining the issues raised and how with out more info it is not clear if they acted properly or not.
http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fonline%2Fblo gs%2Fnewsdesk%2F2010%2F04%2Fthe-wikileaks-video-and-the-rules-of-engagement.html

no. they have to be specifically marked. if they arent marked, how do you know its medical. maybe its just someone picking the guys up to bring them to medical, but its other enemies. Im pretty sure it has to be marked

[Snoogans]

I don't think it matters if they are marked. If they are non-combatants, they are non-combatants. Again, I know this is grayed by an insurgency, not adhering to rules themselves. But, we must endeavor to to remain on the right side. If we make a mistake, that is acceptable, if the government covers-up it up and doesn't rectify what led to the mistakes, that is unacceptable.

Good article, explaining the issues raised and how with out more info it is not clear if they acted properly or not.
http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fonline%2Fblo gs%2Fnewsdesk%2F2010%2F04%2Fthe-wikileaks-video-and-the-rules-of-engagement.html

The understanding here is that such people are clearly designated as noncombatants—by wearing a prominently displayed red cross, or red crescent, on their persons, for instance—or who are obviously civilians. A “positively identified” combatant who provides medical aid to someone amid fighting does not automatically lose his status as a combatant, and may still be legally killed.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/04/the-wikileaks-video-and-the-rules-of-engagement.html#ixzz0kTGwM3q2


thats from that newsday article

[Serpico1103]

thats from that newsday article

I think you are missing the essential "positively identified" part. The people in the van were not "positively identified" as combatants. They were not there when the fighting started. They only seemed to collect the wounded. They did not appear armed.
I don't see how that could be "positively identified" as combatants. The article was drawing a distinction between someone firing a rifle one sec, then providing medical aid the next (a combatant) and someone who has not engaged in combat (a non-combatant). The people in the van appear to be non-combatants.

From what I read, it appears that when they asked for permission to open fire, the commander should have asked for clarity. We don't train or pay soldiers enough to make most decisions.

[Snoogans]

I think you are missing the essential "positively identified" part. The people in the van were not "positively identified" as combatants. They were not there when the fighting started. They only seemed to collect the wounded. They did not appear armed.
I don't see how that could be "positively identified" as combatants. The article was drawing a distinction between someone firing a rifle one sec, then providing medical aid the next (a combatant) and someone who has not engaged in combat (a non-combatant). The people in the van appear to be non-combatants.

From what I read, it appears that when they asked for permission to open fire, the commander should have asked for clarity. We don't train or pay soldiers enough to make most decisions.

the person they were assisting, in the minds of the soldiers, were indeed positively identified as combatants. Otherwise they never woulda been allowed to shoot at them in the first place.

Im not saying what was done was correct. Im just saying at the time, with them thinkin these were indeed targets, there was nothing wrong about what they did

[Serpico1103]

the person they were assisting, in the minds of the soldiers, were indeed positively identified as combatants. Otherwise they never woulda been allowed to shoot at them in the first place.

Im not saying what was done was correct. Im just saying at the time, with them thinkin these were indeed targets, there was nothing wrong about what they did

You are not allowed to shoot at disable combatants either. I know it is weird that war has rules, but it does. Like how in a street fight kicking someone in the balls is looked down upon.

Medical personnel are even allowed to use arms to protect their wounded or themselves without losing their status as medical personnel.
I know in the heat of battle lines get blurred. Maybe since this video, the military has adapted its procedures to deal with a mostly civilian population, instead of a hostile military force.

I am not saying the soldiers were wrong, necessarily. Their commander does not seem to understand what he is granting permission to fire on.

[Snoogans]

You are not allowed to shoot at disable combatants either. I know it is weird that war has rules, but it does. Like how in a street fight kicking someone in the balls is looked down upon.

Medical personnel are even allowed to use arms to protect their wounded or themselves without losing their status as medical personnel.
I know in the heat of battle lines get blurred. Maybe since this video, the military has adapted its procedures to deal with a mostly civilian population, instead of a hostile military force.

I am not saying the soldiers were wrong, necessarily. Their commander does not seem to understand what he is granting permission to fire on.

but the personnel have to be marked as medical personal. which that van clearly wasnt

[Crispy_Mobile]

snoogs is correct. you don't fire on shit with a red cross or red crescent, other than that, if you are engaged you respond with overwhelming force. sort that shit out later, id rather be at a court martial than my own funeral!

[Serpico1103]

snoogs is correct. you don't fire on shit with a red cross or red crescent, other than that, if you are engaged you respond with overwhelming force. sort that shit out later, id rather be at a court martial than my own funeral!
That's why you should not be a soldier. Medical personell must have identifying marks because otherwise they are dressed as soldiers in military vehicles. Civilians helping wounded people do not read to wear 'medical I'd's'. What did they people in the van do to threaten the chopper or nearby infantry? Civilians are not to be engaged. Helping wounded combatants (or assumed combatants) does not make a civilian a combatant. I have no problem with a soldier shooting someone acting suspiciously who moves suddenly as if they are carrying a gun which turns out to be a camera. We are limited. But I have a problem with shooting on someone just helping wounded people. If the guy in the van had showed a weapon or was seen focused on picking up a discarded weapon that would also be different.

[Snoogans]

That's why you should not be a soldier. Medical personell must have identifying marks because otherwise they are dressed as soldiers in military vehicles. Civilians helping wounded people do not read to wear 'medical I'd's'. What did they people in the van do to threaten the chopper or nearby infantry? Civilians are not to be engaged. Helping wounded combatants (or assumed combatants) does not make a civilian a combatant. I have no problem with a soldier shooting someone acting suspiciously who moves suddenly as if they are carrying a gun which turns out to be a camera. We are limited. But I have a problem with shooting on someone just helping wounded people. If the guy in the van had showed a weapon or was seen focused on picking up a discarded weapon that would also be different.

with no markings, thats exactly what it would do. The moment you arent marked and attempt to help the enemy, they cant take a chance that you arent an enemy. You have to take the soldiers actions from the point of they were firing on the enemy. in their mind there was no gray area

and it goes back to my other point. I dont care if someone was hurt, if you are in a van with kids in it, maybe you should be a little smarter than to attempt to pick up someone who was being shot at by multiple choppers

[Serpico1103]

with no markings, thats exactly what it would do. The moment you arent marked and attempt to help the enemy, they cant take a chance that you arent an enemy. You have to take the soldiers actions from the point of they were firing on the enemy. in their mind there was no gray area

and it goes back to my other point. I dont care if someone was hurt, if you are in a van with kids in it, maybe you should be a little smarter than to attempt to pick up someone who was being shot at by multiple choppers
I think the soldiers are expected to give people the benefit of the doubt. That is what makes using the military in a civilian population difficult. I don't know what the guy in the van knew or saw about the choppers. It doesn't seem that he acknowledges the chopper, even the original group of men seem mostly unaware of the choppers, or jaded to their presence.
I am not saying anyone should be punished. I am saying that we must ensure the event is properly analyzed to decided if everyone involved acted according to existing US military standards. Not your standard or mine. If they did act according to standard and those in charge of US protocol decide the procedures are necessary for our involvement, fine. If they decide that protocol needs to change to help us win this "war," fine. I don't know why people who claim to be patriotic are so afraid of our government investigating. Do they love our government or fear it, but love being on the side with the biggest stick?

[Crispy123]

That's why you should not be a soldier. Medical personell must have identifying marks because otherwise they are dressed as soldiers in military vehicles. Civilians helping wounded people do not read to wear 'medical I'd's'. What did they people in the van do to threaten the chopper or nearby infantry? Civilians are not to be engaged. Helping wounded combatants (or assumed combatants) does not make a civilian a combatant. I have no problem with a soldier shooting someone acting suspiciously who moves suddenly as if they are carrying a gun which turns out to be a camera. We are limited. But I have a problem with shooting on someone just helping wounded people. If the guy in the van had showed a weapon or was seen focused on picking up a discarded weapon that would also be different.

I wasn't a soldier, I was a Marine.

And yes, if they don't want to be fired upon they need to wear markings. Saddam had markings and was still firing from those positions during the first Gulf War, but we still played by the rules.

BTW, This is why waterboarding is such a big issue. All of this shit was sorted out at the Hague & Geneva and has been agreed upon by the Nations involved in World Wars and is the code of conduct for operating in a hostile environment.

[Chigworthy]

I wonder what would happen in a domestic situation. The police just engaged and shot the shit out of people that were carrying very dangerous weapons in the street. Obviously, the police believed the people to be capable of causing great bodily injury or death to the officers and/or the public in the area, otherwise they would not have engaged them. As the officers are attempting to secure the scene after the gun battle, a privately-owned vehicle pulls up and starts loading the perceived criminals into it. It's not an ambulance, the men loading the criminals are not wearing paramedic or emt uniforms. Would they just let the people take the wounded criminals, and possibly evidence, away?

Obviously, domestic police would be in a position to verbally command the "rescuers" to stop what they were doing before using deadly force against them. I'm not saying this is a perfectly analogous situation, but there are more considerations that the engaging soldiers had than us armchair generals are even capable of understanding. If anything, the radio traffic exonerates everyone involved of any malicious intent, and to me, the video exonerates them from any wrong doing.

The bottom line is that if you are doing a "report on weight-lifting" and you hear a battle down the street, don't follow the "weight-lifters" towards that battle when their barbells turn into AK's and RPG's. And if you absolutely have to follow them, don't point your long, cylindrical camera lens down the street towards the guys with heavy ordinance and deadly helicopters. And if your wight-lifting friends who happened to be carrying weapons and the bumbling reporters who were interviewing them get shot to shit from a great distance away with surgical precision, maybe you should call the ambulance and the local police to come in and help them. But if you absolutely can't stop yourself from parking your unmarked van right where heavy ordinance just blew the shit out of the place, why don't you leave your fucking kids at home you dumb motherfuckers.

[Serpico1103]

I think the military has decided to relook at the incident. If so, I WIN!! If not, I don't WIN, yet.

Military personel acting as medics must wear markings! Otherwise they are just soldiers. Civilians don't need to wear markings.
Marines don't fit into the accepted definition of soldier? You might be, not just a soldier, but a Marine. Still, a soldier.

[Crispy123]

I wonder what would happen in a domestic situation. The police just engaged and shot the shit out of people that were carrying very dangerous weapons in the street. Obviously, the police believed the people to be capable of causing great bodily injury or death to the officers and/or the public in the area, otherwise they would not have engaged them. As the officers are attempting to secure the scene after the gun battle, a privately-owned vehicle pulls up and starts loading the perceived criminals into it. It's not an ambulance, the men loading the criminals are not wearing paramedic or emt uniforms. Would they just let the people take the wounded criminals, and possibly evidence, away?

Obviously, domestic police would be in a position to verbally command the "rescuers" to stop what they were doing before using deadly force against them. I'm not saying this is a perfectly analogous situation, but there are more considerations that the engaging soldiers had than us armchair generals are even capable of understanding. If anything, the radio traffic exonerates everyone involved of any malicious intent, and to me, the video exonerates them from any wrong doing.

The bottom line is that if you are doing a "report on weight-lifting" and you hear a battle down the street, don't follow the "weight-lifters" towards that battle when their barbells turn into AK's and RPG's. And if you absolutely have to follow them, don't point your long, cylindrical camera lens down the street towards the guys with heavy ordinance and deadly helicopters. And if your wight-lifting friends who happened to be carrying weapons and the bumbling reporters who were interviewing them get shot to shit from a great distance away with surgical precision, maybe you should call the ambulance and the local police to come in and help them. But if you absolutely can't stop yourself from parking your unmarked van right where heavy ordinance just blew the shit out of the place, why don't you leave your fucking kids at home you dumb motherfuckers.

Interesting but I would like to point out that police are supposed to be peace officers and the military, if not acting in a humantarian capacity, are killing machines.

I think the military has decided to relook at the incident. If so, I WIN!! If not, I don't WIN, yet.

Military personel acting as medics must wear markings! Otherwise they are just soldiers. Civilians don't need to wear markings.
Marines don't fit into the accepted definition of soldier? You might be, not just a soldier, but a Marine. Still, a soldier.

Yeah, I was giving you shit about the soldier deal. :wink:

Military medics in the field don't operate under the banner of the Red Cross or Red Crescent and do take fire and many times carry a weapon.

Im not saying if its right or wrong, what these guys did but if you don't want to be fired on don't go near a firefight or wear markings indicating you are a non-combatant, period.

You generally don't shoot at women & children but who's to say these guys weren't out on patrol the day before and had someone in a Burkha pull out an AK or see a young kid plant an IED? It's hard to second guess war. And I and many others would much rather explain that shit to a jury than ponder it in a pine box..

[Serpico1103]

Interesting but I would like to point out that police are supposed to be peace officers and the military, if not acting in a humantarian capacity, are killing machines.



Yeah, I was giving you shit about the soldier deal. :wink:

Military medics in the field don't operate under the banner of the Red Cross or Red Crescent and do take fire and many times carry a weapon.

Im not saying if its right or wrong, what these guys did but if you don't want to be fired on don't go near a firefight or wear markings indicating you are a non-combatant, period.

You generally don't shoot at women & children but who's to say these guys weren't out on patrol the day before and had someone in a Burkha pull out an AK or see a young kid plant an IED? It's hard to second guess war. And I and many others would much rather explain that shit to a jury than ponder it in a pine box..
Than I think we agree. I am not a lunatic demanding for courts martials. I just want an appropriate investigation. What troubles me is that if the reporters weren't involved would this have come out? Is there more of this? Other incidents that are clearly wrong that are buried for fear of the public learning the cost of war.
War is messy, that is why it should not be entered lightly, which we did in both afghan and iraq. Not saying they are unjust, just that the public (and government) did not weigh the long term impact, the collateral effect of using the military as a national police force in two foreign hostile countries (using very young men not trained for that job).

[Snoogans]

The bottom line is that if you are doing a "report on weight-lifting" and you hear a battle down the street, don't follow the "weight-lifters" towards that battle when their barbells turn into AK's and RPG's. And if you absolutely have to follow them, don't point your long, cylindrical camera lens down the street towards the guys with heavy ordinance and deadly helicopters. And if your wight-lifting friends who happened to be carrying weapons and the bumbling reporters who were interviewing them get shot to shit from a great distance away with surgical precision, maybe you should call the ambulance and the local police to come in and help them. But if you absolutely can't stop yourself from parking your unmarked van right where heavy ordinance just blew the shit out of the place, why don't you leave your fucking kids at home you dumb motherfuckers.

thank you